Thread by @tribunaltweets

Good morning. We are expecting to resume this morning at 10 am in Professor Jo Phoenix vs the Open University. Our previous coverage is here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo…

Key abbreviations:
J: Judge
P: Panel sitting with J

JP - Prof. Jo Phoenix, claimant
BC - Ben Cooper KC, Counsel for JP
OU - Open University, Respondent
JM - Jane Mulcahy KC, OU counsel

GCRN - Gender Critical Research Network
HWSRA - Health & Wellbeing Strategic Research Area
FASS - Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
SPC - Dept of Social Policy & Criminolog
KMi - Knowledge Media Institute

SW - Stonewall
JPk - Dr. Jon Pike, OU Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Staff Tutor
FOS - Freedom of Speech
MF - Maya Forstater, claimant where judgment deemed GC beliefs of Worthy of Respect in A democratic society, AKA WORIADS
RR - Reindorf Report
AF - Academic freedom

Some potential witnesses today:
LW - Louise Westmoreland, Prof of Criminology, Co-Deputy Head SPC, 2018-21, Current Head SPC
JD - John Domingue, Prof of Computing Science, Director KMi, 2015-22
DD - Dr Deborah Drake, Senior Lecturer Criminology, Head of SPC 2018-21

Note: there has been a fair amount of witness shuffling so this is what we expect at this point.
Expecting to resume at 10 am.

We have been told that the judge has not yet arrived and we will be advised when the tribunal is starting.

We are resuming.
JM - a witness, KT, is suffering from Covid, supposed to be a short witness, we've agreed to submissions on the basis of her witness statement.
J - we will have to take a view on this, we may have her testify via remote link.
(Further discussion)

JM - plan for today is John Domingue first, then some of the remaining witness, DD will be tomorrow.
(JM - speaks very quietly, did not hear remaining names enough to reliably relay)
J - call your witness
JD - takes the stand.
JM =- taking through witness statement.

JD - affirms, identifies self, incorporates witness statement.
BC at time of GCRN formation, KMi provided web services to various networks etc.
JD - it was a favour, a big favour
BC - were you ever told in providing that favour is that you were not to discriminate

JD - my understanding is that it was a controversial area and sensitive, and in an email it was inferred that the exec had to take and be seen to take decisions
BC - put differently, were you told that you had to treat the GCRN network the same as others

JD - I understood we had to treat them the same
BC - this was your actions and your words
JD - actions
BC - and words
JD - yes
BC - I understand at launch of GCRN you had a number of complaints about you hosting the GCRN
JD - yes, internal and externaal

BC - and thats why you took the actions you did
JD -yes
BC - you provide a sample complaining email, this was representative of the external complaints, reads out, GC aims to eliminate trans people, roll back rights, etc
JD - a few complaints also said 'why is KMi hosting this'

BC - now email from research associate, internal complaint
JD - she didn't complain to us, she raised the issue
BC - I don't care if we characterise this as a complaint, she raised the issue to you
JD - I'm looking at the wrong page,
BC - reads out page number
JD - reading

BC - she says 'this is crap, isn't in line with OU values, etc, this is not about deplatforming,....'
BC - you understand AF
JD - more than understand I am an advocate
BC - you understand that AF is not consistent with adopting a mission statements etc

JD - I wholly heartedly agree
BC - you understood that you could not act in response to these calls for discrimination
JD - I agree
BC - now another email from KMi person, GC is like eugenics is to race, toxic etc, did you understand you couldn't treat GCRN less favourably

because of these views
JD - yes I understand and agree
BC - you were getting messages from your staff
JD - I was line managing a staff member was transitioning and was being harassed for being a 'transphobe' on Twitter
BC - obviously that's very distressing, but you can see

being called a transphobe is very distressing is a slur
JD - I was focused on my staff, but I was aware
BC - do you think the members of GCRN were or are transphobes
JD - I wouldn't judge any member of staff like that or any other person
BC - lets look at an email you sent

BC 'a number of members of my team who are very distressed and upset by this GCRN launch and material'
You then proposed to remove the logos etc and singled them out for less favourable treatment
JD - no, you have to understand the context we are a computer science research

lab, and I'm building an AI tutor, and when we set this up as a favour to host the networks, and it had our KMI in the page. We wanted to not be in the middle of the discussion, one of our members is trans.
BC - I understand your reasons, I'm asking about your actions.

JD - we are a computer science research network and these were all about the GCRN, and our logo doesn't add any value to their pages
BC - then why not remove it from all of HWSRA pages etc
JD - I was trying to balance the trauma of my staff member and didn't want to be in this

toxic debate. Our logo didn't add any value.
BC - exchange of emails, you also highlight there is a petition, 'we will continue to dissociate KMi from GCRN'
You were taking action to differentiate the GCRN from the other networks.
JD - disassociate means that we were making

it clear that the GCRN is not a subset of KMi.,
BC - You were not talking about doing that for any other part of HWSRA
JD - we were responding to the controversy and taking ourselves out of the middle
BC - reading out an email to JD 'it does concern me that you have dissociated

KMi from the GCRN. Including the standard text of reply to external complaints
says 'we are dissociating ourselves from GCRN, especially in Pride month, bad for the well being of trans people and non-binary colleagues'
JD - we are getting complaints that are specific to GCRN

and we are responding to those complaints
BC - I understand that, but we also agreed that you were not allowed to treat GCRN less favourably, this statement is giving credence to the idea that GCRN is harmful to trans people,
JD - we were worried about trans people

BC - the implication is that GCRN has done something wrong and harmful to trans people by launching in pride month
JD - we had trans staff that were very distressed
BC - so you were sending this statement out, to appease the complainants and giving credence to GCRN being harmful

and you know that was going to be shared more widely.
JD - I'm a computer scientist, once I send an email it can be made public
BC - you wanted it to be made public, refers to email about the text appearing on social media and being shared in a positive way

JD - we wanted to step out of the controversy
BC - you wrote and sent that text and you knew that it was not a neutral statement, you were taking a side
JD - repeats avoiding controversy
BC - do you see the text of email from you to Prof E about C, we would like to stop hosting

GCRN and continue hosting the remaining HWSRA. So you were proposing to treat the GCRN differently.
JD - talks about technicality of URL and website
BC - were you proposing to treat GCRN differently here
JD - I was trying to make Prof E's life easier.

BC - I understand that's your case. But what you were proposing to move the SRA off your servers
JD - the reasons for that....
BC - I'm not asking about your reasons. You were proposing to move them off your servers, even though you could have changed the URL and make it appear

as if they weren't on your servers.
JD - I wanted to be able to say 'we are not hosting them'
BC - but if you changed the URL no one would know
JD - I wanted to be able to say that we had nothing to do with them
BC - Prof E - those proposed actions would be discriminatory

do you agree she said that
JD - yes
BC - but despite that, JD email, given the above, we will remove GCRN content from our servers on the following Friday. Looking at what you were proposing in June 2021, you were NOT saying that we will treat them equally, you were

expressly threatening to take them off your servers and leave them with no servers
JD - my staff....
BC - I am talking your actions and words not your reasons. WEre you expressly threatening them with no servers?
JD - I was trying to move the process forward, I would not have

done it.
BC - then you released a statement,
JD - 40% of it supported academic freedom, don't remember the exact timing
BC - chronology: you published the web statement before the email from Dr Shakes... and we can see that it is being tweeted out, tagging to OU GCRN Twitter

explicitly knowing that it will be seen by GCRN Twitter feed. You are advising people to tweet out using OU GCRN Twitter
JD - yes, I can see this.
BC - I can see a KMI tweet that says KMI don't like you and a link to your diversity statement. You were deliberating responding to a

a thread that was not neutral that said we don't like you,
JD - we were supporting aF
Bc - focus on my questions
JD - y es
BC - you tweeted in response to a thread, with a link to your diversity statement , the implication of this email chain is it is the same thread

JD - my understanding is that we would tweet that support AF but we do not support GCRN
BC - you know when you send that tweet it will be tagged to the OU GCRN
JD - I was talking to my staff....
BC - did you know that it would be tagged to GCRN and would come to their attention

JD - I don't know if I knew that
BC - you see that is being read as 'KMi don't like you' rather than KMi is being neutral
JD - the intention of the statement was to support AF, support our trans/nb staff, dissociate ourselves from GCRN,
BC - a couple of final point s

BC - you don't appear to have contacted them (?) as part of a university to ensure that all are being treated the same, what was your assumption
JD - my assumption was the principle of self-id
BC - you thought that there was harm to trans people from GCRN and your association

with them
JD - the evidence is that there is controversy and at least two sides, we didn't want to be in the middle
BC - you signed the open letter, you weren't concerned about being neutral
JD - I was concerned to support my trans member of staff

BC - did you read the letter?
JD - I assume I did
BC - did you not agree with it?
JD - I was concerned about my trans staff member
BC - but you were not concerned about not discriminating against the GCRN,
JD - 40% of our diversity statement was about AF

JD - I was trying to balance a number of conflicting areas: complaints, trans staff member and AF.
BC - thank you, those were all my questions.
J - I do have questions, but we are going to take a break and be back at 11:20.
Part 1 of morning ends.

@threadreaderapp unroll please.